Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Interpreting Studies
Vol. 18:3 (2023) ► pp.448–470

A comparative interpreting studies view of interpreting in religious contexts

ORCID logo

This article applies Comparative Interpreting Studies to research on interpreting in religious contexts and the relevance of this literature to interpreting studies more broadly. Comparative Interpreting Studies is an approach that looks to plot the commonalities of all interpreting practice. It is argued that actual observed interpreter behaviors, rather than assumed professional standards, provide a justifiable unit of comparison. The behavior of interpreters in religious contexts is discussed, alongside the split between prescriptive and descriptive approaches to analyzing this behavior and the importance of spiritual and emotional aspects. Differences in research approaches on interpreting in religious contexts are shown to shadow debates within interpreting studies and thus offer insights that may be cautiously generalized. Such generalizations align with recent research in a variety of interpreting contexts and lead to a call for interpreting researchers to give more attention to the wider social, organizational, and personal contexts of interpreting.

Keywords: interpreting in religious contexts, church interpreting, comparative interpreting studies, interpreter behavior, interpreting settings
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Comparative translation and interpreting studies explained
  • Interpreting in religious contexts – A brief introduction to research and practice
  • Interpreter behavior in IRC … and beyond
  • Prescriptive vs. descriptive approaches
  • The religious aspect of IRC and the multi-dimensionality of interpreting
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 May 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.20112.dow
References
Alvarenga, Marcos
2018 “Church Interpreting: Stakeholders’ Expectations and Attitudes towards the Quality of a Hybrid Interpreting Practice.” Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom.
2004b Medical Interpreting and Cross-Cultural Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp S.
2015 Speak English or What?: Codeswitching and Interpreter Use in New York City Courts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonini, Rachele, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi
eds. 2017 Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation: State of the Art and Future of an Emerging Field of Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balcı Tison, Alev
2016 “The interpreter’s involvement in a translated institution: A case study of sermon interpreting.” Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.
Beaton, Morven
2007 “Interpreted ideologies in institutional discourse: The case of the European Parliament.” The Translator 13(2): 271–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borrman, Mary
2004 “Interpreting frozen text in the religious setting: The path toward dynamic equivalence.” Journal of Interpretation, 75–93.Google Scholar
Buzungu, Hilde Fiva, and Jessica P. B. Hansen
2020 “Bridging divides in the interpreting profession: Response to Gile and Napier (2020).” International Journal of Interpreter Education 12(2): 57–62.Google Scholar
Clifford, Andrew
2004 “Is fidelity ethical? The social role of the healthcare interpreter.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 17(2): 89–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doorslaer, Luc van
2017 “The relative need for comparative translation studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 12(2): 213–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downie, Jonathan
2014 “Towards a homiletic of sermon interpreting.” Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society 14(2): 62–69.Google Scholar
2015 “What every client wants? (Re) mapping the trajectory of client expectations research.” Meta 60(1): 18–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Stakeholder Expectations of Interpreters: A Multi-Site, Multi-Method Approach.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.
2021 “Interpreting is interpreting: Why we need to leave behind interpreting settings to discover comparative interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 16(3): 325–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eraslan, Seyda
2011 “International Knowledge Transfer in Turkey: The Consecutive Interpreter’s Role in Context.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tarragona, Spain: Rovira i Virgili University.
Giannoutsou, Margarita Zoe
2014 Kirchendolmetschen–Interpretieren Oder Transformieren? Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Gile, Daniel, and Jemina Napier
2019 “Spoken language interpreters and signed language interpreters: Towards cross-fertilization.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 12(1): 62–71.Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra
2007 Community Interpreting. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hervais-Adelman, Alexis, Barbara Moser-Mercer, Christoph M. Michel, and Narly Golestani
2015 “FMRI of simultaneous interpretation reveals the neural basis of extreme language control.” Cerebral Cortex 25(12): 4727–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hild, Adelina
2017 “The role and self-regulation of non-professional interpreters in religious settings: The VIRS Project.” In Non-Professional Interpreting and Translation, ed. by Rachele Antonini, Letizia Cirillo, Linda Rossato, and Ira Torresi, 177–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hokkanen, Sari
2012 “Simultaneous church interpreting as service.” The Translator 18(2): 291–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “To Serve and to Experience: An Autoethnographic Study of Simultaneous Church Interpreting.” Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Tampere, Finland: Tampere University.
Hokkanen, Sari, and Kaisa Koskinen
2016 “Affect as a hinge.” Translation Spaces 5(1): 78–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hvelplund, Kristian T.
2017 “Eye tracking in translation process research.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schweiter and Aline Ferreira, 248–64. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoza, Jack
2010 “Achieving successful partnerships: Deaf professionals and designated interpreters.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 15(2): 205–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karanasiou, Panagiota-Penny
2017 “Fulfilling the interpreting mandate in business negotiation meetings. The perspectives of interpreters and clients.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh, United Kingdom: Heriot-Watt University. [URL]
Karlik, Jill
2010 “Interpreter-mediated scriptures: Expectation and performance.” Interpreting 12(2): 160–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Francine
2005 “Contribution à l’histoire de l’interprétation Consécutive : Le Metourguemane Dans Les Synagogues de l’Antiquité.” Meta 50(3): 972–986. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kinnamon, Jennifer
2018 “Called to service and finding a purpose: A mixed-method study of signed language interpreters volunteering in church and religious settings.” Unpublished MA thesis, Western Oregon University.
Korpal, Paweł
2016 “Interpreting as a stressful activity: Physiological measures of stress in simultaneous interpreting.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52(2): 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurz, Ingrid
1994 “A look into the ‘black box’–EEG probability mapping during mental simultaneous interpreting.” In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline, ed. by Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker, and Klaus Kaindl, 199–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, June
2019 “Communication Style of Intercultural Mediators: A Comparative Analysis of Two Sermon Interpreters.” Unpublished MA thesis, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
Mason, Ian
ed. 2001 Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Matthews, John
2006 “Review of: Ebru Diriker (2004). De-/Re-Contextualizing Conference Interpreting: Interpreters in the Ivory Tower?” JoSTrans: Journal of Specialized Translation 51: 151–57.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D.
2020 “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal 7(1): 92–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
2018 “Interpreter traits and the relationship with technology and visibility.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 13(3): 366–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1999 Sign Language Interpreting: Deconstructing the Myth of Neutrality. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mikkelson, Holly
1999 “Interpreting is interpreting-Or is it?” Originally Presented at the GSTI 30th Anniversary Conference.Google Scholar
Musyoka, Eunice Nthenya, and Peter N. Karanja
2014 “Problems of interpreting as a means of communication: A study on interpretation of Kamba to English Pentecostal church sermon in Machakos Town, Kenya.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 4(5): 196–207.Google Scholar
Napier, Jemina
2004 “Interpreting omissions: A new perspective.” Interpreting 6(2): 117–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odhiambo, Kenneth, Eunice Nthenya Musyoka, and Peter M. Matu
2013 “The impact of consecutive interpreting on church sermons: A study of English to Kamba interpretation in Machakos Town, Kenya.” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 3(8): 189–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Owen, Andrew
2014 “One Among a Thousand” Interpreting in Christian Settings. London: The Wakeman Trust.Google Scholar
Ozolins, Uldis
2016 “The myth of the myth of invisibility?” Interpreting 18(2): 273–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
1995 “Simultaneous interpreting: A functionalist perspective.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics 141: 31–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Coping with culture in media interpreting.” Perspectives 15(2): 123–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K., and Tamara Mikolič Južnič
2020 “Community interpreters versus intercultural mediators: Is it really all about ethics?” Translation and Interpreting Studies 15(1): 81–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2011 “The translator as non-author, and I am sorry about that.” In The Translator as Author: Perspectives on Literary Translation, ed. by Claudia Buffagni and Beatrice Garzelli, 31–43. Universita Per Stranieri of Siena: LIT Verlag Münster.Google Scholar
Ray, James
1998 “Me, a religious interpreter? No way!” Views: A Monthly Publication of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf.Google Scholar
Rayman, Jennifer
2007 “Visions of equality: Translating power in a deaf sermonette.” The Sign Language Translator and Interpreter 1(1): 73–114.Google Scholar
Roy, Cynthia B.
1999 Interpreting As a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salawu, Adewuni
2009 “A mufasssir: Not just an interpreter.” Translation Today 6(1): 115–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G.
2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Existing theories – New models.” Interpreting 13(2): 176–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Multimodal processing in simultaneous interpreting.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schweiter and Aline Ferreira, 461–75. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seleskovitch, Danica
1986 “Comment: Who should assess an interpreter’s performance.” Multilingua 5(4): 236.Google Scholar
Seeber, Kilian G. and Dirk Kerzel
2011 “Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16(2): 228–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
St. André, James
2010 “Lessons from Chinese history: Translation as a collaborative and multi-stage process.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 23(1): 71–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tekgül, Duygu
2020 “Faith-related interpreting as emotional labour: A case study at a Protestant Armenian Church in Istanbul.” Perspectives 28(1): 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet
2019 “The (un-) ethical interpreting researcher: Ethics, voice and discretionary power in interpreting research.” Perspectives 27(5): 747–760. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, Graham H.
2005 “Towards real interpreting.” In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. by Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, 253–265. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet and Gard B. Jenset
2011 “Process and product in simultaneous interpreting: What they tell us about experience and expertise.” In Methods and Strategies of Process Research: Integrative Approaches in Translation Studies, ed. by Cecilia Alvstad, Adelina Hild, and Elisabet Tiselius, 269–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiselius, Elisabet and Kayle Sneed
2020 “Gaze and eye movement in dialogue interpreting: An eye-tracking study.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(4): 780–787. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyulenev, Sergey, and Binghan Zheng
2017 “Introduction: Toward comparative translation and interpreting studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 12(2): 197–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uher, Jana
2016 “What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 46(4): 475–501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigouroux, Cécile B.
2010 “Double-mouthed discourse: Interpreting, framing, and participant roles.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(3): 341–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1999 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimányi, Krisztina
2009 “A diagrammatic approach to redefining the role of the interpreter based on a case study in forensic psychology.” Translation & Interpreting 1(2): 55–70.Google Scholar
Zwischenberger, Cornelia
2015 “Simultaneous conference interpreting and a supernorm that governs it all.” Meta 60(1): 90–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar